As to the question about the grenade - court cases ruled that sawed-off shotguns were not protected "arms" under the 2nd Amendment. Regulation of grenades, bazookas, tanks, and similar weapons seems to be covered.

Ergo, "arms" can be and are regulated and there is no reason whatsoever that your ability to purchase and keep firearms of any kind can also be regulated.

Why don't you include yours here instead of saying "just do a little searching"?

It's a fair question, Chronos. But I spent about 2 hours last night reading some about the Commerce Clause, the 2nd Amendment case history, and the interplay. The cases and analyses are too voluminous for a quick read.

But, there seems to be a case that could come into review shortly. It involves the Montana Firearms Freedom Act. Apparently, the suits over this act could be reviewed by the US Supreme Court, and have some impact on the Commerce Clause and the 2nd Amenment.

I don't think it is fair to conclude that registration leads to confiscation, but it would obviously make certain weapons easier to locate in the event they become banned.

Read this out loud to yourself over and over until it sinks in. Fair? Locate?

Watch this warning from Canada.

Perhaps I should have used the word 'logical' instead of 'fair', but I still stand by my statement. Registration does not inevitably lead to confiscation. If it did then every country requiring firearm registration would eventually disarm its citizenry, and that just isn't happening. Even the video example you posted states that Canada's AP-80 ban affected only "hundreds, maybe thousands" of gun owners[1], so its not like every Canadian was suddenly required to turn in all his guns. Apparently, the AP-80 is the only model of firearm that has been subject to confiscation in the 20 years that Canada has required registration.

Quote

There is no registry of guns in the US, except for certain restricted guns, like fully-automatic weapons.

My bad on that one, I had confused gun permits (of which I assume most gun owners possess) with gun registration.

Quote

Just watch the video a few more times, and then you'll understand. If you don't understand, then you never will.

I'm not sure how a video that makes no mention of universal background checks is supposed to convince me that universal background checks are bad. Do you support background checks as they are presently utilized for certain gun transactions?

What I want is a reduction in gun violence and gun accidents. I want people who should not have guns to not have guns. And I would like it if the rest of gun owners weren't such obstacles to achieving that.

There are no rights that are absolute. There are limits to every other right guaranteed in the constitution. We all seem to agree that free speech does not include printing slander, it does not include saying things that could immediately cause injury or loss of life. We all agree that police can and should be able to search private property in the event of emergencies, or if there is probably cause. So I don't see the fuss about limiting gun rights when there is a compelling public safety interest.

Let's just throw out the 4th Amendment, along with the 2nd Amendment. Is that what you are saying?

First of all, what I suggested would not throw out the 4th amendment. Secondly, what 4th amendment? The patriot act, as well as numerous cases before the largely neocon[1] supreme court have pretty well made the bill of rights a token document. And despite all the bravado and machisimo about guns being to prevent tyranny, gun guys didn't make a peep about it, let alone start an insurrection. All talk, but no action.

We already have laws for that. Today, for all practical purposes, 50 million households holding 250 million guns were not responsible for one gun-related death. At least in a statistically significant sense.

OMG, dude. Terrible argument. Total non sequitur. I agree the sentencing was unreasonably light. And I agree the prosecutor may have been overly zealous. But it in no way actually connects Canada's registry to his prosecution. The problem is here:

Canada allows people to claim self-defence for using force, including guns, to protect their life as long as the force is reasonable and they believe they have no other options.

“If the public are wondering can you run out of your house and [fire a handgun at an intruder], the bottom line is, according to the laws of Canada, no, you can’t,” said Constable Nilan Dave of the Niagara Regional Police Service, which charged Mr. Thomson. “That’s why the courts are there, to give a person an opportunity to explain their actions.”

I don't know about Canadian law, but my understanding is in the US you are not allowed to "scare people off" by mencaing with your gun or by shooting over their heads or aiming to wound. You are allowed to shoot someone if you reasonably believe your life is in danger. If his life was in danger, why was he not shooting at them? If it was not in danger, why was he shooting at all? I understand why there was at least an investigation.

His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence.

This is exactly what I want to have happen to someone who has been charged with a violent crime. Without an accurate registry, they might not have known about any of the other weapons. If it turned out he was a bad guy, he'd still have a ton of guns.

Then his neighbour’s chickens began showing up on his property. He warned his neighbour, then killed one of the birds.

I have never understood the kind of asshole who shoots neighbors pets just because they got onto their property. I'm not saying shooting a chicken warrants firebombing his house. I'm just saying, the guy looks like almost a big a part of the problem as his neighbor.

edit2:#8 makes a good point about a national registry. The NYT article shows one of the problems with not having universal background checks:

Quote

“He’s not perfect by any means, but he’s a good man,” the relative said. “He’s a God-fearing man. If what had happened there had happened here, and it hadn’t been times like now, everything would be O.K., because everybody would know him.”

No. The guy is a fucking imbicile taking a weapon to a state where he is not permitted, through states where it is not permitted (NJ), hiding the weapon where anyone can and did find it, and then not owning up to it. The dickhead should have been taken to the observation deck of the Empire State building and unceremonious thrown off.

This is one of the huge problems I have with guns. Many of the owners are irresponsible retards whose supposed rights come at the cost of the saftey of the rest of us.

edit3:#1 has a bunch of problems discussed here rolled into one. Mentally ill guy with access to a gun. Cops shoot him (and the guy trying to restrain him) without notification despite the gun never being pointed at them, not being loaded and the guy only threatening to hurt himself. And of course, it is ruled the cops were justified. When are they not?

I don't know about Canadian law, but my understanding is in the US you are not allowed to "scare people off" by mencaing with your gun or by shooting over their heads or aiming to wound. You are allowed to shoot someone if you reasonably believe your life is in danger. If his life was in danger, why was he not shooting at them? If it was not in danger, why was he shooting at all? I understand why there was at least an investigation.

You have to be kidding me, right? I won't even address the whole post.

Men were fire bombing his house. He was a firearms instructor. If he was a good instructor, and a good shot, he could have killed them and claimed self-defense. Instead he fired over their heads and into a tree to scare them off. And, he's somehow the bad guy?

When I was much younger, I studied and read tons about martial arts. One of the basic tenants of some of the martial arts was:

"Defend yourself, without destroying others."

It seems to me that is exactly what he did. And, yes he was acquitted. After two years, and who knows how much expense?

Let me reiterate: he killed a chicken, and then they were fire bombing his house.

So do I. I am drawn to it like a moth to a flame. It's actually hard to believe we can all bash gods together, and yet be so different on some issues.

Not believing in an afterlife gives me more reasons to own guns. I can sum it up in the quote attributed to General George S. Patton - "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."

I have guns in my house. I am a lousy shot, at least with a handgun. If you fire bomb my house, my goal will be for me to not die that day, and if you have to die, well, shit. I am such a bad shot that I might just shoot you by accident, trying to shoot over your heads, into the ground, or into a tree. Duck while throwing your fire bombs.

You really should. Because the part of the post you did not address was the important part. It was the part that said that case had absolutely nothing to do with a national gun registry. Which was what you said you posted it for.

I explained the problems there. If I am mistaken as to the law, then kindly point it out. In pointing out the situation as I did, I was trying to show that there were real questions about his actions and possibly actual legal ramifications. That he was arrested and tried was directly linked to those ramifications and not at all to the national gun registry.

I think he should have just shot them. That could possibly have avoided the whole mess.

That's a nice idea, but not particularly practical or effective. The martial arts I studied strongly advocated avoiding conflict and using violence only as a last resort. But if you had to use violence, there was a saying: If you try to bruise me, I will make you bleed. If you try to make me bleed, I will break your bones. If you try to break my bones, I will take your life, but I will pray for your soul as I do it.

OMG, dude. Terrible argument. Total non sequitur. I agree the sentencing was unreasonably light. And I agree the prosecutor may have been overly zealous. But it in no way actually connects Canada's registry to his prosecution.

The first two charges were dropped, presumably because he was acting in self-defense. That obliterates your argument about him shooting in the air or into the ground vs. killing them. If you read all the articles carefully, you understand that the law in Canada required him to keep the handgun in a locked compartment, and his ammunition in a separate locked compartment. It might not be tied directly to gun registration, but it at least indirectly shows the idiocy of Canada's laws.

Quote

I don't know about Canadian law, but my understanding is in the US you are not allowed to "scare people off" by mencaing with your gun or by shooting over their heads or aiming to wound. You are allowed to shoot someone if you reasonably believe your life is in danger. If his life was in danger, why was he not shooting at them? If it was not in danger, why was he shooting at all? I understand why there was at least an investigation.

In my state in the US, you are allowed to use force against force. Deadly force can be countered with deadly force. You might beg to differ, but from my perspective four men hurling fire bombs at my house is deadly force. He lived up to the highest martial arts (and gun arts) standard of defending himself, and his property, without destroying others.

Quote

His collection of seven guns, five pistols and two rifles was seized, along with his firearms licence.

Quote

This is exactly what I want to have happen to someone who has been charged with a violent crime. Without an accurate registry, they might not have known about any of the other weapons.

You should be a policeman or prosecutor, then. Everybody is guilty until proven innocent. He was charged with crimes, not convicted of them. Those charges were dropped.

Quote

If it turned out he was a bad guy, he'd still have a ton of guns.

No! Say this over and over, until it sinks in. "Bad guys don't obey the laws." There are bad guys in Canada who did not register their guns. The Crown turned Thomson into a bad guy by charging him with these inane violations, and then used the registry to sieze his lawfully owned, and lawfully registered, guns.

Quote

I have never understood the kind of asshole who shoots neighbors pets just because they got onto their property. I'm not saying shooting a chicken warrants firebombing his house. I'm just saying, the guy looks like almost a big a part of the problem as his neighbor.

Chickens are pets in Canada? I doubt it, but he probably should not have shot the chicken. However:

Quote

(from your later post) But if you had to use violence, there was a saying: If you try to bruise me, I will make you bleed. If you try to make me bleed, I will break your bones. If you try to break my bones, I will take your life, but I will pray for your soul as I do it.

In my state in the US, you are allowed to use force against force. Deadly force can be countered with deadly force. You might beg to differ, but from my perspective four men hurling fire bombs at my house is deadly force.

Who the heck are you arguing with? Are you even reading my posts? I'm the guy who said he should have shot them.

You should be a policeman or prosecutor, then. Everybody is guilty until proven innocent. He was charged with crimes, not convicted of them. Those charges were dropped.

Really? You want people who have been charged with violent crimes or gun violations to be able to keep their weapons until they are proven guilty? A gang-banger out on bail for killing someone should get to keep his gun until after the trial? A husband who assaults his wife gets to keep his guns until the after the trial?

Does that really sound like good policy to you or does it sound preposterously stupid? You know, after 9/11 they were saying things like "the Bill of Rights is not a suicide pact".

Oh, well, fuck it then. We should get rid of all the laws that bad guys ignore. I guess we'll have to repeal murder laws (bad guys don't follow those). And we can repeal burglary, any kind of theft, rape. Bad guys don't follow those either. Gosh, you know, I cannot think of a single law bad guys do follow. We should abolish all laws then. Since we'll have no laws, we'll need no police either. That will be a big savings. Everyone will be on their own. I guess we'll all need more guns then because the only justice for anyone will be the justice they can deliver for themselves. Wild, wild west.

A lot of bad guys aren't bad guys until they are. That is, not all bad guys have always been bad guys. A person can follow the law and then not. That is a problem with that kind of thinking. You are thinking of them as intrinsicly Bad or Good, as if that is how they have always been and always will be, and it just is not so. There are guys you would have called "Good", right up until the point they shot their mother in law in the face because of a drunken argument over his use of silverware. And then they weren't.

I know a law is not going to solve 100% of the problem. But it can make the problem easier to deal with. And to do nothing is abject failure.

It definitely has nothing to do gun registration. The only connect between this case and gun registration is that both have something to do with gun laws. That's it. That video was scare propaganda.

I disagree. Canada's inane gun laws have everything to do with registration. If you read the accounts of Thomson's arrest, you see that he was charged with careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe. The first two charges were dropped, because he was obviously defending himself. He was acquitted of the other two.

The whole goal of the Canadian gun laws are to keep people from having free use of their firearms. You have to keep a handgun locked in a box, and the ammunition locked in a separate box. The whole idea is to prevent you from being able to use the firearm and ammunition. Registration is an extension of those laws. They are all degrees of the same idea.

I know you think registration is a good idea, in that it will help track weapons used in crimes. But, in one of the articles it mentions that they confiscated his weapons. I haven't been able to determine whether he got them back. He wasn't a criminal, by the way.

Quote

Repeat those two paragraphs out loud. Then write them 10 times each. It will help you come to grips with reality.

Touche, but I believe I have a better grip on reality than you have.

Quote

As for my argument being obliterated, nope. My point was the incident should have been investigated. It was. Whether the charges were dropped is incidental.

Investigated? He was arrested, his guns were confiscated, and he had to defend himself with his own money. The fact that the most serious of the charges were dropped in paramount. And the dumb-assed Crown pursued charges for improper storage even after the other charges were dropped. That was vindictive. Anti-gun folks didn't want him to own, and especially, use his guns, even in the process of defending himself.

Quote

Who the heck are you arguing with? Are you even reading my posts? I'm the guy who said he should have shot them.

Here I disagree. He did what a reasonable person should have done. He called 911, and then used his firearms to dissuade the attackers without causing injury.Except he didn't defend shit. Last I checked, bullets do not make houses fire proof, nor do they extinguish fire.

Quote

Really? You want people who have been charged with violent crimes or gun violations to be able to keep their weapons until they are proven guilty? A gang-banger out on bail for killing someone should get to keep his gun until after the trial? A husband who assaults his wife gets to keep his guns until the after the trial?

Allegedly killing someone, and Allegedly assaulting his wife. As I said, guilty until proven innocent.

Quote

Wild, Wild, West. That is where this moronic idea logically leads.

Total nonsense.

Quote

A lot of bad guys aren't bad guys until they are. That is, not all bad guys have always been bad guys. A person can follow the law and then not.

Under this logic, no one should be allowed to own a gun, because they could turn bad at any instant.

He thought his wife was in love with another man, police say, so James McFillin of Baltimore decided to blow the other man up.

It was 1979 in Baltimore. McFillin wired two sticks of an explosive called Tovex 220 into the electrical system of a truck belonging to Nathan Allen Sr., killing Allen and injuring another man, prosecutors said.

What McFillin did not know was that his Tovex was “tagged,” as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives would say. His two sticks were part of about 7 million pounds of explosives that manufacturers had laced with microscopic, color-coded plastic particles called “taggants” as part of a $5 million experiment to test the ability of taggants to identify explosives.

Quote

......... there is the classic NRA “slippery slope” worry: A program that requires keeping records on who buys explosives could ease the way to national gun registration. The gun lobby views gun registration as tantamount to confiscation, despite the many Supreme Court decisions that have upheld the constitutional right to bear arms

Quote

In a telephone chat, I asked William Kerns, president of Microtrace, the Minneapolis-based company that makes taggants, how he feels about the NRA’s concerns. He drew a distinct line of difference between firearms and explosives. “I’m a member of the NRA,” he said, noting that he was a retired captain in the Minneapolis Police Reserve, “and I don’t want to have to register my gun.”

However, when I asked him about concerns over the safety and stability of explosives to which taggants were added, he said, “They’ve been requiring it in Switzerland for about 30 years, and I haven’t heard any complaints.”

If you read the accounts of Thomson's arrest, you see that he was charged with careless use of a firearm, pointing a firearm and two charges of careless storage of a firearm, one for each of the pistols he had removed from his gun safe. The first two charges were dropped, because he was obviously defending himself. He was acquitted of the other two.

I don't care. I think when it comes to guns it is prudent to err on the side of safety. While they are trying to figure it out, I do not see how public interest is served by leaving guns with the offender.

Now that he's acquitted, I think he deserves to get all of his guns back.

Allegedly killing someone, and Allegedly assaulting his wife. As I said, guilty until proven innocent.

So in those situations you are saying those alleged offenders should be allowed to keep their guns? With due respect, Odin, that's a horrible idea. In reality, the results are dead women.

Here are cases where the men had restraining orders, but were allowed to keep their guns, and then killed people. I understand there is a difference between a restraining order and being charged with crime. But a restraining order does not require a trial, just a judge reviewing the evidence. You are not proven guilty of anything. Similarly, having charges brought against you also does not require a trial, just a prosecutor reviewing the evidence.

Under this logic, no one should be allowed to own a gun, because they could turn bad at any instant.

I was not making an argument. It was an explanation. A lot of "criminals" were by all appearances law abiding citizens. And then something happened. I don't know what. Perhaps they were borderline personalities, hanging on by a thread. Perhaps they became substance abusers. Perhaps something wrecked their lives. Maybe they found jesus. I don't know. But that is not the point. Your assumption was that these "criminals" are all career criminals, bad to the core. But that is not always the case.

I just realized why the gun lobby is so dead set against any gun control, which might eventually lead to registration of all firearms, and it's not confiscation. Confiscation is just a ruse.

The thing they fear is taxes. If guns have to be registered, there will be a cost for registration -- a fee -- and that is essentially taxation. The subset of people who despise any kind of gun control very nicely fits with the subset of people who despise taxes in any form.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Accidental shooting deaths have declined since 1981, with just 609 nationwide in 2010, the last year of available data. To say it another way, accidental deaths from guns have fallen nearly 70 percent in the last 30 years. This incredible success story has not received much attention because it is attributable, in large measure, to efforts of the NRA’s education and training division, which has led the way in providing firearm training to millions of men, women and children.

Not in my opinion. If children, mentally handicapped folks (including anti-gunners [snicker]), or irresponsible adults are in the house, then guns need to have safety locks, trigger locks, or be locked in safes. Making gun owners keep guns locked in a separate container from the locked ammunition makes the gun ineffective in most self-defense situations, Mr. Thomson from Canada notwithstanding.

I have owned and used guns since my Dad took me hunting at about age 8, and I am now 59. All the handguns I own are loaded right now. The first thing I do when handling one of my guns, any gun, is to make sure it is unloaded. Our gun club has been at its current location since 1965, and has never had a gun-related injury. We now have 1,000 members.

I have to withdraw from this thread, as it is taking too much time and energy. We will never agree on these issues. I will fight new gun laws, that I believe are useless, because we already have enough laws. I believe the ultimate goal of registration is further and further restriction of my gun rights, if not outright ban and confiscation.

If the point is to have fewer people killed with guns, then this is one way to do it. People with guns should be trying to find other solutions rather than killing someone. My bedroom has an entrance door. If someone came into my house (though another door) while I was there, I could avoid all trouble just by leaving. I would not have to stand my ground, nor would I be tempted to, even if I had a gun. Standing my ground inherently means putting myself at risk. And that is stupid.

Here is my parting shot. I would call 911, arm myself, and hide behind my bed watching the only door that enters my bedroom. Anyone entering would have to outshoot me.

Note to anyone reading this, who has guns for self-defense in your home. Never take your gun with you and "sweep" the house looking for intruders. It gives them the upper hand.

I might read the replies, but I have to withdraw from this thread. I will fight additional useless laws that are designed to further limit my gun rights. It is obvious we will never agree on the issues at hand.

The gun control currently spreading across America would more aptly be called pre-gun confiscation or even more extreme, pre-genocide.

Seriously? Don't insult me with this shit. Not only is it hyperbole and emotionally charged propaganda, it is also factually wrong. It's lies on top of lies. She complains about California taking away guns. They are. From felons and the mentally ill. Ooo, scary gummint takin' guns.

Also:

Quote

The United States is at war. It’s not a declared war; right now it’s a war of words and ideas. It’s a battle for the minds of Americans and it’s as fierce as any conflict we have ever fought in our history.

She goes on to name the "liberal media, politicians, politial pundits" etc as the enemy. Frankly, the fact that she sees political disagreements between American citizens as a war and liberals as the enemy tells me we have more to fear from her and her ilk especially because they are armed.

And look at her credentials: " Dr. Sharon Schuetz has a PhD in clinical Christian counseling." woohoo. There's someone to take seriously.

On Tuesday, inside a rural Kentucky home, a five-year-old boy accidentally shot and killed his two-year-old sister. The boy had been playing with a .22 caliber single-shot Crickett rifle made and marketed for kids. The children's mother was reportedly outside the house when the shooting took place, and apparently didn't know that the gun contained a shell.

"Just one of those crazy accidents," said the Cumberland County coroner, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Logged

John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.